BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

On not voting

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
.
11:52 / 10.06.04
From John Pilger in a Guardian article:

"In the last election there was the lowest turn-out in election history and it was wrongly represented as apathy. It wasn't, it was a strike."

It seems to me that politics is going the way of fashion or food or classical music - parliamentary affairs are turning into the equivalent of haute couture/ cuisine or opera. A minority interest. It's not that people don't 'do politics' any more, it's just that like the conceptual fashion catwalk has become increasingly irrelevant to the high street shopper, and opera to the boy band fan, so with parliamentary politics to the man on the clapham omnibus.

I don't necessarily agree with Pilger in the quote above, but I think he's on to something - politicians flatter themselves if they think we don't vote out of apathy (as if the only reason we wouldn't vote for someone so great was if we didn't know about them or didn't care). Some people don't vote out of apathy, some people don't vote out of disillusionment, and some people (an awful lot of people I suspect), don't vote simply because they're content.

And then there is the big question of what to do if you don't agree with any party's politics. Is it better to vote tactically so the worst don't get in? Or not vote at all? How do you effectively represent your opinions if you are inclined to be anti-government or anti-the democratic process in it's current form? (Assuming you don't want to turn to terrorism).

And...

Can not voting be considered a positive political action?

How can one distinguish between deliberately not voting, and simply not being bothered to vote?

Is it everyone's moral resposibility to vote?

Would a 'none of the above' option on ballot papers be a better idea? Perhaps combined with compulsory voting?
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:40 / 10.06.04
If you believe that you should have a say in determining the rules and laws that you live by, there is simply no excuse for failing to vote. If you don't vote, you aren't actually registering your dissatisfaction with the system - you are opting out of participation and allowing others to make your choices for you.

Can not voting be considered a positive political action?

I don't see how, considering that there is no positive action that results from failing to vote. At best, there is a comment on low turnout numbers - but there is no mechanism in place for a low turnout actually affecting the outcome of a vote.

How can one distinguish between deliberately not voting, and simply not being bothered to vote?

Proclamation on the part of the deliberate non-voter? Otherwise, I can't really see much of a difference. Personally, I think all failures to vote are a result of laziness, whether the individual in question will admit it or not.

And then there is the big question of what to do if you don't agree with any party's politics.

Go to a party and make your views clear. Go to all the parties and make it clear that they won't win your vote until they seriously consider your views. Barring those, how about joining a party and contributing your views to it?

Is it better to vote tactically so the worst don't get in?

This, I think, is one of the most ass-backwards notions of the modern voter. If you're not satisfied with your current government, how are you ever going to be satisfied by casting your vote for someone you don't agree with, just to get rid of your current government? Won't you just be dissatisfied with the new rule? In a two-party dominated system, doesn't that mean you'll just end up voting for the party you originally wanted to oust next time around?

How do you effectively represent your opinions if you are inclined to be anti-government or anti-the democratic process in it's current form?

The current system of democratic government in most Western societies allows for a change of governing law, if the people make their desire for it clear via referendum. Referendum can be called for if a governing party puts it forward as a policy.

If you're anti-government, the only sane thing to do is to vote for a governing party with a policy of relaxation of rule...not to allow someone else to choose who will rule you.

Would a 'none of the above' option on ballot papers be a better idea?

Possibly, yes. However, I think it would still tempt people to be lazy and cast a "none of the above" vote when they should actually be working to change the policies of existing parties (or, barring that, starting new parties of their own).
 
 
Chiropteran
14:48 / 10.06.04
October Ghost: "If you're anti-government, the only sane thing to do is to vote for a governing party with a policy of relaxation of rule...not to allow someone else to choose who will rule you."

If one is really "anti-government," then why would they wish to participate in the mechanics of government? By doing so, they are directly consenting to and reinforcing the legitimacy of the ruling system. And whether they vote or not, they are still being ruled by someone else, and the choice is not theirs.

"Relaxation of rule" is not the same thing as "elimination of rule," and can only ever go as far as the government itself is willing to let it go. The U.S. government will never let itself be simply voted out of existence.

This being said, I think that there is still something to be said for "tactical voting," particularly on the local level. While the vote cannot be used to bring down the goverment, it could potentially be used to shape certain conditions right now while the revolutionary continues their anti-government activities through different means.

I have to admit that I'm currently conflicted on this very issue. My refusal to vote has always been a conscious rejection of the illusion of choice the government gives us, because there has never been (nor can ever be, by definition) a political candidate I would wish to positively support -- when one sees government itself as "evil" then any vote cannot be other than a choice between two "evils," no matter how much one might try to reform the party-system or make their needs known to the candidates.

Sometimes, though... one of the evils is so heinous as to demand a response, and G.W.B. is pretty damn heinous. If there was a way I could vote against Bush without voting for anyone else, I would be in the booth in a second (twice, if possible ). That option is not open to me, however. I just might have to show up at the polls anyway, for once in my life, to help make sure Bush's loss is as landslidey as possible (can you tell I'm an optimist?). On the other hand, maybe I could just talk a couple Bush supporters out of voting, and wouldn't that be just as productive? I'm only half-kidding.

To get serious again for a minute, I do whole-heartedly reject the statement that a decision not to vote is always the result of laziness. I would also respectfully suggest that October Ghost doesn't really have a clear idea of what it means to be anti-goverment (or anti-democracy), or they would have recognized the absurdity of their suggestions. I'm not trying to start a flame-war, I just want to underline some of the assumptions that informed the post. The "democratic republic" paradigm is not absolute, and one does not need to be limited to working inside it to criticize it.

I'm not sure how coherent that all was, but there you go.

~L
 
 
Ray Fawkes
15:06 / 10.06.04
"Relaxation of rule" is not the same thing as "elimination of rule," and can only ever go as far as the government itself is willing to let it go. The U.S. government will never let itself be simply voted out of existence.

Hmm. You can say that, but you can't prove it unless you participate, can you? Who's to say you can't elect a party on a platform of elimination of government in a democratic system?

My refusal to vote has always been a conscious rejection of the illusion of choice the government gives us...

So, is there something you do that combats this illusion? Or demonstrates its weaknesses? Or do you just decide not to particpate, letting it operate with or without you?


To get serious again for a minute, I do whole-heartedly reject the statement that a decision not to vote is always the result of laziness.

I would love for somebody to actually convince me I'm wrong on this matter. Can you demonstrate how refusing to vote is anything other than a passive response to a system you dislike? Especially considering that the system involves a mechanism for self-alteration based on application of vote?

I would also respectfully suggest that October Ghost doesn't really have a clear idea of what it means to be anti-goverment (or anti-democracy)

I'd say I have a very clear idea of what they mean. I consider a completely "anti-government" stance to be absurd in modern life. Regardless, I don't think refusing to vote promotes an anti-government agenda...I think it releases control of your circumstances to the existing system.

If you're anti-democracy, you really shouldn't be worrying about whether or not failing to vote is a legitemate statement in a democratic society. Why does it matter to you then...assuming you're pursuing an anti-democracy agenda, you've got better ideas about how to live and you're working towards implementing them, right?


The "democratic republic" paradigm is not absolute, and one does not need to be limited to working inside it to criticize it.

Absolutely true. Interestingly enough, as I point out, it is a paradigm that allows itself to be redefined by participants. You can actually vote in a dictatorship or an anarchist dissolution of government if you want it. I'm puzzled as to why one would choose not to take advantage of this aspect of democracy if they dislike the current paradigm...unless they're trying to push a system that other people don't want - in which case, they'll never push it through in a democratic forum. Is that the case you're arguing for?
 
 
.
15:43 / 10.06.04
October Ghost - One quick point to note is that in the western world we are never voting in an absolute democracy - both the US and the UK are representational democracies. Which means that on a practical level, we have to rely on those that represent us to make the right decisions for us. So even if I believed in the total moral goodness of a democracy, I may still choose not to vote in the elections as they are now. My original post was not about not participating in voting and democracy per se, but not participating in parliamentary politics in it's current form.

And as for being anti-government, I meant just that - not being minimal government, but being anti- it. I can't really see any situation where one could truly vote for anarchy (in as much as the electoral system wouldn't allow it's own demise - especially not in the UK, where it's the Queen's government, not the people's).
 
 
Ray Fawkes
16:05 / 10.06.04
Then why not vote for a party that makes it easier to push your "anti-government" agenda? Or form one that pushes policies that make it easier and see if you can convince people to agree?

Or, if you're not willing to govern or be governed, why live in an established state at all? You could always buy a big boat and head out into the ocean. If you're going to opt out, then opt out all the way.

I stand by my statement: opting not to vote is the lazy choice. If one could prove, by action, that they are actively working to change the system in a manner that is as effective (or more effective) as voter influence, the statement would no longer be true.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:39 / 10.06.04
Of course, it all depends on whether you actually receive your voting papers or not...
 
 
Smoothly
19:43 / 10.06.04
Opting not to vote is the lazy choice. If one could prove, by action, that they are actively working to change the system in a manner that is as effective (or more effective) as voter influence, the statement would no longer be true.

As effective as a voter's influence? How much influence is that exactly?

Is it possible that a lot of people don't vote simply because they don't believe their individual vote will make any difference - that they have no effective influence at all? Why does it matter whether I vote or not? Couldn't a decision not to vote arise from a rational and deliberate risk assessment? For example, how do the chances of the election coming down to one vote compare with my chances of being run over on the way to the polling station?
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:36 / 11.06.04
Is it possible that a lot of people don't vote simply because they don't believe their individual vote will make any difference - that they have no effective influence at all?

And thus discouraged, they remove themselves from the equation and ensure that they have no effective influence.

If that isn't laziness then it must be cowardice. Can anyone make a case for a refusal to vote as an actual valid political action? I still haven't seen one. Apologies, but risk assessment: how worthwhile it is to vote vs. whether or not you'll be hit by a car on the way to the polls - is ludicrous.
 
 
Smoothly
13:24 / 11.06.04
You see, you've got to say why it's ludicrous. Aren't lots of political decisions based on an assessment of what one stands to gain vs. what one stands to lose?

they remove themselves from the equation and ensure that they have no effective influence

I can only imagine that someone who won't cash in the difference between a negligable chance and no chance at all, spends a great deal on money on the National Lottery.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
16:29 / 11.06.04
Okay, listen. If you think your voice is negligable, you're wrong. Flat wrong.

In both a democratic and democratic parliamentary system, each person has an equal quantity vote...that is, for every registered citizen over the age of majority, one person = one vote.

The system asks that you do your part in determining what happens with your community - one person's role - no more, no less. If there are ten of you, you should get an equal say to the other nine. If there are ten million, then you get an equal say to the other 9,999,999. Sound logical?

If you are part of that society of ten million and you decide not to take part because you "feel insignificant", you are actually opting to become passive in matters of the community, allowing others to make your decisions for you. You are, effectively, abandoning the right to make your views felt by the community politic.

Now if what you're saying is "I don't feel like I'm important enough", one is led to wonder - how much more important than everybody else do you think you ought to be? Is there merit to your complaint, or are you just selfish?

If there is systemic merit to the complaint - i.e. corruption in the electoral system - then there are mechanisms in democratic society to make your complaint known and to call for referendum. If your call meets with popular support, the system can be altered.

If you don't think that using your vote to direct the system or campaigning for referendum are sufficient recourse, then you could always try creating a platform for entry into the political arena. If that meets with popular vote, you become a contender and can direct change from within the system.

Even in systems (like the US) where an electoral college or other body actually stands between the people and the final vote, the vote of the people is meant to direct that body. For instance, in the US, the Electoral College has voted differently than the popular numbers only four times since its founding. Every time they do so, there is a public outcry. That public outcry is composed of...what? Single voices.

Do you really want to know why your statement about comparing the odds of your influencing an election to the odds of getting run down is ludicrous? First, because if you spend your life comparing odds like that, you'll never do anything useful. It's safest to stay in bed all day. Second, because of this:

http://www.americanwilderness.org/capwiz/close_elections.htm
 
 
pornotaxi
17:40 / 11.06.04
why do people not vote?

sometimes people have reasons for not being on the electoral roll itself. many marginal people do not want to be traced.

personally i've never paid poll tax or council tax. i'm a non-person in that respect, and thus not eligible for a voter's card. if i did pay, and appear on the books, then i might vote for the Scottish Socialist Party. maybe. but i don't lose any sleep over my lack of status.
 
 
Smoothly
18:45 / 12.06.04
October Ghost - First off, I'm not saying anything about myself, or how significant or important I feel. I'm just suggesting a reason why someone might reasonably decide not vote.

Okay, listen. If you think your voice is negligable, you're wrong. Flat wrong.

Winningly put, but I'm not so sure. One vote in any large election is going to be negligible, in the same way that one cell in a brain is negligible. The absence of one individual would not be noticed.

Do you really want to know why your statement about comparing the odds of your influencing an election to the odds of getting run down is ludicrous? First, because if you spend your life comparing odds like that, you'll never do anything useful. It's safest to stay in bed all day.

But don't people weigh up odds like that all the time? Should I go home to check if I left the iron on? Is there any point in looking behind the couch for that lost sock? Is it worth going to war in Iraq... It seems to me a perfectly ordinary way to decide whether to do something or not.
And while I accept that there have been narrow margins in some elections, in any given instance what's the chance that one vote is going to make a difference to the outcome? Roughly. It seems at least rational to me to do something else with your time on polling day - perhaps one of the things you suggest, perhaps read the paper.

If you don't vote, ...you are opting out of participation and allowing others to make your choices for you.

Thing is, they're not your choices, they're the majority's choices, and the majority will make them whether you cast your vote or not.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
22:38 / 12.06.04
That's assuming, of course, that the majority never includes the individual. Which is a false statement at its core - since the majority is composed of individual votes. It is, need I say, the majority of individual votes in accord.

Your arguments smack of blind opposition - somebody who believes they can never make a difference because they always oppose the majority, regardless of its actual position. Doesn't that strike you as a little silly?
 
 
Ray Fawkes
22:39 / 12.06.04
Also:

And while I accept that there have been narrow margins in some elections, in any given instance what's the chance that one vote is going to make a difference to the outcome?

look again at the link I included. In some cases there, a single vote in each precinct would have reversed the election.
 
 
Smoothly
01:26 / 13.06.04
I think we might be misunderstanding one another. Why - for the purposes of this argument - does it matter that the majority is composed of individuals? As I hinted at before, it isn't always appropriate to see things as identical with their constituents. A brain is composed entirely of brain cells which, together, form something clever, powerful and important. Considered individually they're dumb, insignificant and dispensable. I'm saying that, in this respect, voters are like brain cells. But maybe metaphors aren't helpful.
Just look at the numbers. Can we not agree that there is a vanishingly small probability that your vote will be anything other than waste of time, time that could be better spent? The day your vote in a large election breaks a tie, let me know and I'll buy you a pint and laugh about it. But presuming that hasn't happned yet, do you concede that, so far, turns out it hasn't mattered whether you voted or not? I might ask, how many times are you going to keep making these inconsequential trips to polling places before you decide that they tend not to be worth the petrol?

Interesting that you see these arguments as smacking of blind opposition. To be honest, I really didn't characterise them in my head like that. I'd have thought this argument applies whether you support the majority or not.
I'm sure there are better ways to attack this position. Maybe there's a moral responsibility to vote, some sort of symbolic value, or a voting culture it's important to contribute to... You can do better than calling it silly.
 
 
Baz Auckland
02:18 / 13.06.04
...but remember that you can't talk of 'you' just individually. With 30-50% of the population not bothering to vote a lot of the time, we're talking about a lot of individuals. Yes, if you personally don't vote, it may not make a difference. But if a lot of 'you' don't vote, it makes a huge difference.
 
 
Smoothly
02:48 / 13.06.04
Indeed, Baz. And if really large numbers of people adopted this position and acted accordingly, that'd be a really good time to start voting.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
03:01 / 13.06.04
Agh. If the moral responsibility and the significance of contribution to your community isn't clear from what I've said already, you're never going to get it...

...and, since the basis of your argument appears to be that since it seems insignificant to you that individual voters actually drive the numbers that you see - ten thousand votes is ten thousand individuals, not a block that renders individual votes one ten-thousandth less meaningful - it seems very silly indeed.

Recall that this thread was started with a call for explanation of the "politics of not voting" - whether or not choosing not to vote can be considered a political action.

Are you saying it can be considered a political action, because it is equally insignificant to voting? In that case, you are demonstrably wrong, as I revealed with that link.

If that's not what you're saying, what, exactly, are you saying? Besides your allusion to neural amalgam, which seems a little off the mark (I fail to see how a collection of thinking beings participating in political consideration and action can be considered insignificant, while an overview of those bodies' actions is considered significant - it's nothing like nerve cells at all).
 
 
Smoothly
11:35 / 13.06.04
Sorry, OG, I think I have been missing your moral argument. I can be pretty dense. I thought yours was a more practical position - that there's no excuse for failing to vote if you don't want other people to determine the result. I suggested that other people determine the result whether you vote or not. Has your vote ever changed the outcome of an election? If it didn't, who did determine the outcome?

I'm not completely sure what counts as a 'political action' but I'd have thought that any deliberate and considered decision about how one engages with the political system would count. Not doing something can be a political action, can't it? What I'm suggesting is that, viewed from the perspective of the individual, one might reason that voting is a pretty ineffectual political action.
Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible that one vote could determine the result, rather that this is spectacularly unlikely. As Lepidoptran said 'maybe I could just talk a couple Bush supporters out of voting, and wouldn't that be just as productive?'. I'd argue that this is twice as productive, and I'm not even half-kidding.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that people generally might as well not vote, I'm arguing that a person might rationally decide not to. It's important that people vote (in fact, this argument doesn't hold if they don't), it just doesn't matter if a person doesn't. Which still seems true. You haven't refuted my supposition that your votes to date have each failed to change the outcome of an election. Explain it to me like I'm simple - in what way was your vote significant?

I fail to see how a collection of thinking beings participating in political consideration and action can be considered insignificant, while an overview of those bodies' actions is considered significant - it's nothing like nerve cells at all

The other way round really. The action of thinking beings is very significant (ie. it determine elections), but the action of an individual isn't. Hence my brain metaphor. It can be a mistake to suppose that the importance of the collective exists within each constituent. I was getting at the idea that what goes for the whole doesn't necessarily go for its individual components. It's no more silly or contradictory to claim that while the electorate is significant an individual voter isn't, than it is to claim that a brain is intelligent but a neuron aint. I was just trying (and failing) to be less clumsy about it.
 
 
The Prince of All Lies
19:59 / 13.06.04
I'll just give a different perspective on this subject. In my country, you HAVE to vote, it's an obligation, it's not like the US or other countries. And I think it should be like that everywhere. I mean, I can still decide not to vote, or voting for noone (blank voting). That way, you can show your discontent in a much more effective way.

I remember reading an article about presidential voting in the US, it stated that most registered voters were basically middle aged WASPs. Most poor people, minorities, etc, didn't vote, as well as most college students. Though things must be different nowadays, if you look at things that way, then everyone should vote, or you're always gonna have the same people making the same stupid decisions..

On the other hand, elections nowadays consist of choosing the lesser of two evils...not precisely encouraging participation.
 
 
.
21:17 / 13.06.04
Some very interesting points so far...

October Ghost, I think it's safe to say that you are all in favour of voting, and voting being a moral responsibility, and perhaps the only effective way to voice one's political opinion. So I ask the question, to you and others - given only two realistic choices, both of which are truly awful and unlikely to be changed by you as an individual, is it really better to vote for one of them than to not vote at all? After all, once that party is in power, by voting for them, you are now in some small way responsible for their actions - any future wars or tyranny they create, they do so in your name. Wouldn't it have been better not to sign your name to their actions, even if it meant not voting?

By taking part in a vote where the choice is A or B, assuming A and B are both terrible, voting for the lesser evil, essentially you might not be in favour of A or B particularly or individually, but you are condoning [A & B] together by partaking in the system. Wouldn't it be better to not have supported either of them?
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:21 / 14.06.04
Suavament Tejiendo:

You haven't refuted my supposition that your votes to date have each failed to change the outcome of an election. Explain it to me like I'm simple - in what way was your vote significant?

If you continue to acknowledge the forest while ignoring the trees, it's impossible to refute your argument. If I say that my votes are significant because they contribute to a community voice, your argument appears to state that the community has its voice with or without me. If you're looking for an example in which a vote I participated in was won or lost on a single vote, I can't give it. It hasn't happened to me.

The fact is, there are trees in this forest, and each one of them shapes the community voice as a whole.

Try and think of it in these terms, as a relevant example: there are more than a couple thousand voices here on Barbelith, shaping the community as a whole. If your argument holds, why are you bothering to say anything here? This community has its voice with or without your statements, doesn't it?

. : I'd take issue with two things you said before answering your question. The first: It must be made clear that voting isn't the only effective way to voice one's political opinion, but it happens to be one of the more effective ways to do so in a democratic system. Protest, for example, is another effective means - if cleverly or reasonably presented.

The second: No Democratic system of election that I can find in the world has only two "realistic" choices...unless you participate in bet-hedging when you make your decisions, instead of voting with your actual voice.

If you think the two "awful" parties are the only realistic choices, you're letting yourself be tricked.

In the world of your example, though, I wouldn't wait for election time to force a choice between two "awful" parties. I would make my views and needs known to the representatives of both parties in my district. If neither seems willing to satisfy my needs, I would attempt to drum up local support to make it clear that these needs are shared by a significant portion of the community. If that failed to sway them, I would see if I could drum up enough support to start a competing party. Failing that, failing all of that, forced, then, to choose between the two parties because they are the only two, I would choose the one who more closely meets my needs. Not the "lesser of two evils": the one who more closely meets my needs.

What I wouldn't do is just throw my vote behind the "lesser of two evils" at the moment of election without bothering to try and make the change.

What I certainly wouldn't do is fail to bother voting and then spend years complaining about how the government doesn't represent my viewpoint anyway.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:34 / 10.04.05
Maybe you don't like the candidates in your constituency, or maybe you are part of the 20 per cent of the population that intends to vote, but doesn't get to it on the day. Some people will say you are apathetic - perhaps you are. But maybe your non-voting is an act of minor protest. Whatever your reason, notapathetic.com would like to hear from you.

Not Apathetic.
 
 
jeed
16:00 / 10.04.05
In the last election our borough voted in a Lib Dem candidate by 20-odd votes, after 17 years of having a tory MP, so I'd call that a positive.

Though I do understand people who have zero faith in the political system not voting as a protest against party politics. The problem is, unless you spoil you ballot, not voting goes unrecorded, and so is pretty much indistinguishable from apathy according to the statistics.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
22:26 / 10.04.05
What I certainly wouldn't do is fail to bother voting and then spend the next few years complaining about how the government doesn't represent my viewpoint anyway

Seeing as this is almost certainly what I am going to do this time, I should try and defend my position.

I'd vote Lib Dem, but where I live, frankly, there isn't any point. It's a shoe-in for Labour, and regardless of what central office is saying at the moment, a vote for Labour is going to be interpreted as a tacit acceptance of the Iraq policy, among many others, insofar as 'Ok, they may not like it, the British Public, but they're prepared to take it, those guys. Whose lives we understand better, whose real motivations we have more insight into than what they have into themselves. Because we've done the research.'

That's your 'left wing' option. Given the way Tony B and the boys have conducted themselves in office ( and I suppose anyone in doubt should have a look at 'Pretty Straight Guys' by Nick Cohen, available at any good bookshop - if even half of that's true it's rather ugly, let's say, ) there is no way I'd have anything to do with it, personally.

A Conservative victory would be a terrible disaster, for sure, if they actually followed through on their election promises, but a) I don't get the sense they're all that committed - does Michael Howard really hate gypsies, for example, or asylum seekers ? Election promises are easily enough broken after all, eg the Freedom Of Info Act, just in now after seven years, along again with a long list of others, and even if they weren't, I find it hard not to imagine a more concilliatory Mike H, in the top job. I maintain that he'd be like an angry kid in a toy shop, full of ideas, but a bit short on purchasing power.

Even so, on his record thus far, not him either.

Charles Kennedy likes a good time, is an affable man, and a Bowie fan yet. He can be all things he wants to everyone without being under any pressure to actually deliver - who knows what he'd do if he had any tuff real wurld decisions to make ?

It seems to me that if enough people don't vote - the last time, at 59%, was only borderline a mandate - then sooner or later one of the major political parties, more out of self-preservation than anything else, is going to have to try and address the concerns of the soon to be, at this rate, disaffected majority.

In that respect ( and there are holes in this argument you could drive a truck through, for def, ) I still think there's a lot to be said for sitting May 5th out quietly, away from the booths.

Apathy, after all, as it's flagged up at the moment, not being quite the same thing as contempt.
 
 
eye landed
09:38 / 11.04.05
to not vote is to vote for nothing.

its a political action because it expresses your preference for nobody over any standing candidates. whether you prefer nothing because of apathy or because of principle, the silence of your voice is heard. when we choose to not exercise a right, we demean that right. those who believe democracy is broken or ineffective should not vote.

spoiling your ballot is a different matter. it shows that you support the process enough to stand in line, but you dont support the candidates enough to choose one.

there is also the issue of cognitive dissonance. when you vote for somebody, you accept partial responsibility for their actions if elected. if their actions are bad, that means you are bad. since you dont want to be bad, you are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt when they do something controversial. therefore not voting is a political action because it maintains your political independence.

the other option is that you refuse to believe you are bad, and instead believe you were willfully deceived. thus you assume that politicians are corrupt and evil, when they are actually just as gullible and shortsighted as you are.

the problem with not voting, as we all know, is that nonvoters tend to fall into particular demographics. thus the reigning government can ignore the interests of nonvoting demographics, like young people.

i believe government is necessary even though it unfortunately allows exploitation of the electorate through their representative. i quite faithfully vote for the green party, who i dont expect to win, and i dont expect could manage the government if they did. if the greens always have a large block of votes, it demonstrates that the electorate is concerned about sustaibability. the contending parties will thus consider adding sustainability to their platform to attract this block of 'protest' voters.

similarly, a large block of nonvoters influences parties and candidates (especially underdogs) to campaign in such a way as to attract new voters. this might include designing a particularly inspiring or surprising platform--like free cheese or something. they might also try to tailor these inspiring appeals to demographics who vote less. i think protest voting is more effective than not voting because nonvoters are a mixed bunch and so hard to appeal to as a group.

the consequence of low voter turnout is that a static government is perpetuated by voters while marginal groups innovate with cultural drift. when innovation is taking place mainly outside of government, government becomes impotent and so useful mainly for corruption, while political power (in the sense of influence over opinion, including economic choices) resides mainly in corporations and cultural groups.
 
 
jeed
11:14 / 11.04.05
I'd agree with sherman, in that the problem with not voting as a protest is that it's indistinguishable from not voting through Trisha being on, and not being able to find your shoes on polling day.

Just out of interest, what do people think are the chances of proportional representation ever appearing in the UK? At the minute, although i've got a bit of a distaste for party politics, i'm planning on voting LibDem as a vote for PR at some point in the future, after which it might be worthwhile voting for the Greens. Naive?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:52 / 11.04.05
to not vote is to vote for nothing.

its a political action because it expresses your preference for nobody over any standing candidates. whether you prefer nothing because of apathy or because of principle, the silence of your voice is heard.

But that's to plump for ideology and ignore practicality. We're never going to have a perfect system, in a world that to an extent encourages individuality the prospect that there will ever be a political candidate that you throughly agree with is extremely low. Believe me, I understand that you might not want to vote, I certainly don't want to throw my vote behind any of the people who I can prospectively vote for as I find many of their policies inadequate. That doesn't mean that I'm not aware of how badly one party, if elected, could fuck up.

Voting is about balance, local purpose vs. national purpose, I can't vote for a Conservative because I know that nationally they will institute policies that will actively hurt the poorer members of this society. In the face of that I actively have to vote against them. Voting isn't necessarily about voting for someone you want- it's about keeping the darkness at bay and keeping your society heading vaguely in the direction that you want it to go. We have a social repsonsibility towards our nation, we have been given that responsibility by democracy and to ignore the fact that so much could be, not given but taken away from our land is wrong. Voting is about protection from the wrong, not striving for the right and you should bear that in mind because abstaining from the system will never make the system go away in an environment like Britain in 2005.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:57 / 11.04.05
It's not a moral responsibility to vote... it's a practical responsibility. In the face of tax cuts, cuts that are implausible and the planned Conservative recession we have to do something to preserve our jobs. We need the immigrants that they are prepared to turn away, we don't need the hardline against criminals- not a certain type of criminal but all 'criminals' and we certainly don't need to elect a party that would have an even worse foreign policy than the Labour party. We have to vote, not to re-elect Labour, not to elect the Liberal Democrats but to keep the Tories out of office because god help us all they are worse and it's terrifying.
 
 
A0S
12:48 / 11.04.05
I agree with s.h.e.r.m.a.n.. In fact I would be in favour of the Australian system where you must vote or face a fine but this should only be used alongside a ‘none of the above’ box and the ‘none of the above’ vote should be declared alongside the other candidates.
If none of the above polls the most votes then no MP should be returned for that constituency.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
14:58 / 11.04.05
I have always been terrified of compulsary vote systems. I am of the opinion that a good number of people who don't vote act in this way because they do not take politics seriously. Whilst I can understand (if not agree with) some of the political motivations for failing to vote mentioned above, I feel that this is true for only a minority of non-voters. The majority simply do not see politics as important, and as a result are unlikely to educate themselves on either the issues or the stance of each party in regards to them. These people should not be encouraged to go anywhere near a polling booth, and certainly not forced.

If they were force, I could could see a number of things happening. Even with a 'none of the above' option, some would porobably just put a cross in a box for the hell of it. In of itself that should not be a major worry as statistically these votes should spread evenly among all parties, however, the majority of people who care this little about their vote would almost certainly cross the top box to get the whole thing over and done with. I don't know about you, but on my last ballot paper that top box was held by the British National Party.

The other way I could see people placing their totally uneducated cross would be by locking onto a name that they knew. This would give a massive advantage to the larger parties given the huge advertising budgets.

I dearly would love to believe that being forced to vote would inspire people to take an interest in politics, and that those who don't would have the good grace to admit it and go for some sort of 'don't know' option. I sadly don't have that much faith.
 
 
A0S
15:33 / 11.04.05
Sadly I can see your point. I would like to believe that compulsery voting combined with a 'none of the above' option would help apathy in large majority situations. As has been said before unless you live in a maginal it can feel like a wasted vote, even though as has been discussed it isn't. If you don't vote for the party of the sitting MP but they have a large majority it's easy to think what's the point in voting. This can lead to someone getting 90% of the votes cast and a large majority when only 40% of those eligible voted. If the missing 60% had to vote and they voted 'none of the above' the sitting MP would be kicked out even if they got 90% of the votes cast for a party.
This would ensure that pretty much every MP was scared of losing their seat and prevent them being complacent about having a large majority. It might make them keener to do what their constituants actually want.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
15:36 / 11.04.05
Sorry, I did mean to tie my arguement into the not voting discussion but posted by mistake (posting from work again).

My point being that, in the case of those who have no interest in politics, and therefore little or no political knowledge, the failure on their part to vote could be seen as healthy for a functioning democracy. It should mean that the only voices that get counted are those of individuals who have scrutinised the actions and pledges of the parties, and so are in the best position to hold them to account.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:16 / 11.04.05
I agree with the last few people, compulsory voting plus a none of the above option would be for the best, though who actually runs the country if the 'none' votes prevail is a tricky question.

As for Alex's position, I'd feel some sympathy if ze wasn't voting because none of the candidates stood for anything ze could believe in, but ze has a candidate, a Lib Dem one, and doesn't want to vote because... what?... The Lib Dem candidate won't win and the Labour one will? Since when has the point of elections been that you vote for the winner? On May the 5th you vote for the Lib Dem candidate not because you want him or her to win but because he or she is the candidate that best represents your views! This isn't rocket science after all. You can apply for a postal vote if you don't/can't make it down the polling station. And maybe, just maybe, there will be a lot of other people who vote Lib Dem too.

Not voting is closer to a tacit vote of approval for Labour's actions in Iraq than a vote for the Lib Dems.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply